Only you would even be able to dig up posts I have dropped for lack of interest in pursuing it beyond making our points and realizing it was going nowhere.
Judy: snip > If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our > hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The > most recent example was our exchange immediately previous > to this one, where you failed to respond to this post: snip <What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of responding?> Because you wear me down Judy as you have here. We both make our points, disagree and then you continue to post as if answering your hostile assertions is endlessly entertaining. It is not. It is boring. And as I mentioned before, you are pissing away opportunities for discussion on your endless rancorous mission to make me look bad. It is boring. No, you have become boring. I am not interested in your making a case that I am something different from your own Mr. Wonderful fantasy. It is a false impression you have created and endlessly try to make me buy into, as if this could even be possible. Both version of me are your own fantasy. This mission consumes you with an intensity that I find distasteful. You are an ill-wisher, a malevolent person toward me. You do not wish me well, you wish me ill. Your agenda is unfriendly. You are the sourest of...Goddam I wish I had not taken that off the table so quickly, now I am going to have to come up with something else...you are not nice Judy. A sand thrower in the sandbox of FFL. And because all the neighborhood cats use the park's sandbox for their litter, your thrown sand stinks. And the sand is boring...oh hell now I've gone too far and lost it again. OK here goes: I rebuke thee, I rebuke the, I rebuke thee. Get thee behind me. (I've heard that works.) --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > Gonna give you just one example from your previous post > > > (don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of > > > misreadings): > > > > But of course. The reader is left to assume that you have > > lots of them. Terms like a "boatload" would be helpful > n enhancing the impression of your misleading assertion. > > "Boatload" is good, especially when we add the new ones > in the post I'm responding to. I still don't have time, > though. I'm working on a deadline, and I'm behind. > > What will you say, I wonder, when I'm able to get around > to it and make good on my claim? > > In the meantime, I'll nail one assertion in this post that > isn't just a misreading but a deliberate falsehood: > > <snip> > > Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when > > confronted with your hostile accusations but respond with > > my POV which differs from yours, > > You do become a "hideous creature," though, in > comparison with your Mr. Wonderful presentation. That > was the whole point of the Hulk and Jekyll/Hyde analogy. > But I suspect you knew that. > > I will assume that this > > mischaractorization is one a long history of ad hominem > > characterizations meant to distract from your inability > > to answer my responses with reasoned argument. And > > because you claim that I become a murderous monster, you > > believe you are conveniently let off the hook of responding. > > Does that really work for you, because from this end it > > seems pretty transparently lame. > > If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our > hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The > most recent example was our exchange immediately previous > to this one, where you failed to respond to this post: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282863 > > What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of > responding? > > I rarely do ad hominem without having *first* responded > with reasoned argument. I don't use the former as a > substitute for the latter. I know you're aware of that, > so why are you pretending otherwise? > > > > "The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense > > > of proportion and fairness, and you too often become > > > actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after > > > another, as you just did above. You pull out your > > > sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to > > > discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either > > > side." > > > > Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with > > reasoned argument you can't respond effectively so you > > pull the old ad hominem out of your very tiny bag of > > tricks > > The post quoted above was an example of the falsity of > your assertion. The "ad hominem" came at the end, after > I'd thoroughly fisked your previous post. It was you who > couldn't respond with reasoned argument. > > > and hope I wont notice. Newsflash, I do. > > Hmm, I expected you to claim you'd somehow managed to > miss the post. You've just neatly disposed of that > potential excuse for not responding to it. >
